JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. These petitions filed under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. being Crl. Rev. Pet 36 of 2014 [Sri Sipan Miah versus State of Tripura] and Crl. Rev. Pet 74 of 2014 [Abu Taher & another versus State of Tripura] are taken up together for disposal by a common judgment as these petitions emerge from the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.11.2013 delivered in PRC No. 469 of 2013 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur, as it then was. 2. The revisional petitioners namely Sri Sipan Miah, Sri Abu Taher and Abu Miah were tried together on taking cognizance of the police report filed under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. for committing offence punishable under Section 420/379/34 of the IPC. The investigation had commenced based on a written ejahar filed by one Smt. Silpi Dey(Deb) in R.K. Pur Police Station. The said complaint disclosed that the petitioners induced the complainant for causing delivery of two gold chains and some cash amount with premeditated intent to defraud the complainant. According to the complainant, one of the accused persons induced her to give her gold chains and some cash to the Thakur (Sri Abu Taher) and the complainant gave the gold chains and the money to Abu Taher. The said petitioners thereafter asked her to keep the money in her bag and also to wear the gold chain after reaching the home, out of apprehension when she checked the bag and found that the said money was inside the bag but the gold chains were not there. She started shouting and the accused persons taking a rickshaw tried to flee away from the spot, but on alarm the people around the place caught them and handed over to the police. The charge was framed against the petitioners for committing offence punishable under Section 420/379/34 of the IPC to which the petitioners pleaded innocence. 3. After recording the evidence of the prosecution and on examination of the petitioners under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the trial court returned the finding of conviction for committing offence punishable under Section 420/34 of the IPC. Besides that, on denying the benefit of probation as the petitioners are Bangladeshi Nationals, they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. Besides that, on denying the benefit of probation as the petitioners are Bangladeshi Nationals, they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine the petitioners would be subjected to further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months. It has been directed that the petitioners be pushed back to the country of their origin, Bangladesh through Indo-Bangladesh Border by the police and be handed over to the Bangladesh police. The said judgment dated 13.11.2013 was challenged by the petitioners by filing an appeal under Section 374(3) of the Cr.P.C. in the court of the Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur as it then was. The said combined appeal against the judgment of conviction being Criminal Appeal No. 47(4) of 2013 the said appeal was dismissed on affirming the judgment of conviction by the impugned judgment dated 21.02.2014, however the sentence was modified. The appellate court modified the sentence directing the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment of 6(six) months under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It has been further directed that if the fine money is realised, it shall be deposited in the appropriate head of the Government by challan. Now by filing two separate Criminal Revision petitions as stated above, the said judgment dated 21.02.2014 has been called in question. 4. Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing vice Mr. D.P. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. Rev. Pet 36 of 2014 and Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petiitoners in Crl. Rev. Pet 74 of 2014 have submitted in unison that the petitioners are in the custody since their arrest on 17.07.2013. Having referred to the records of the trial court learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has further submitted that they could not obtain bail during the entire period of trial or the appeal. As such, the petitioners are in the jail for more than three years. The counsel appearing for the petitioners have submitted that it would be apparent that the two gold chains as referred in the complaint was retrieved to the complainant by virtue of the order dated 20.07.2013 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur. As such, the petitioners are in the jail for more than three years. The counsel appearing for the petitioners have submitted that it would be apparent that the two gold chains as referred in the complaint was retrieved to the complainant by virtue of the order dated 20.07.2013 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur. 5. What has been contended emphatically is that in the context of the case the sentence as passed by the appellate court, even after modification remains disproportionate. Hence, it has been urged to this court for reducing the sentence, confining the imprisonment equivalent to a period what the petitioners have by now suffered. 6. Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents didnot resist such proposition and submitted that the court may appropriately pass the necessary order of sentence as the petitioners preferred not to insist on their challenge against the judgment of conviction. Section 420 of the IPC provides imprisonment for either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 7. Having due regard to the relevant circumstances, this court is of the view that the sentence should be reduced to the rigorous imprisonment for the period of 3 (three) years with fine of Rs.100/- each, in default, the petitioners shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 days further. Accordingly it is ordered. 8. The period of detention shall be set off from the sentence of imprisonment . On release, they shall be pushed back to their country of origin i.e. Bangladesh by the administration without allowing them to continue their illegal stay in India. It is clarified that the petitioners, if are on bail and if they have not suffered the imprisonment, they shall surrender before the trial court within 30 (thirty) days from today, else they shall be subjected to the stern judicial action for ensuring that they suffered the imprisonment as stated. 9. In the result, these criminal revision petitions are partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. Send down the LCRs forthwith.